{"case_id":"113年度金訴字第51號","case_number":"113年度金訴字第51號","chunk_filename":"chunk_0020.txt","chunk_index":20,"documents_referenced":["新聞報導","訊問筆錄","銀行金流紀錄","陳情書","顧問合約"],"end_seconds":6200,"keywords":["串供","內政部核定","志工","羈押","衛京集團","陳情","顧問合約"],"legal_issues":["是否構成串供之通訊聯絡","羈押之必要性與證據之充分性","被告於衛京集團之顧問合約性質及金流合法性","被告與應曉薇之間是否存在指揮監督關係 (雇傭或從屬關係)"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否構成串供之通訊聯絡","被告與應曉薇之間是否存在指揮監督關係 (雇傭或從屬關係)","被告於衛京集團之顧問合約性質及金流合法性","羈押之必要性與證據之充分性"],"participants":["吳順民","彭振聲","應曉薇","林欽榮(顧問)","沈慶京","辯護律師","黃"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","吳順民 (被告)","應曉薇 (議員)","沈慶京","林欽榮 (顧問)","彭振聲 (副柯文哲)","黃檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0020","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5900,"summary":"辯方律師針對被告吳順民之角色與行為進行辯護。主張吳順民僅是以志工身分協助應曉薇處理民事澄清案，且與衛京集團之顧問關係為單純的專業勞務委任，金流透明。針對檢方指控的通話紀錄，辯方認為該通話內容僅為討論內政部核定之意見分歧，並非串供，批評檢方刻意忽略有利證據以申請羈押，且指責媒體報導偏頗。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0020.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0020.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0020","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0020/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0020/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0020/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/Q2uHOiwtENo","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}